Job 24:21; probably the word is intended to be all the more emphatic, inasmuch as the first radical, which disappears in ידע, is thus in a certain measure restored.[1]
Verses 7-8
Out of these experiences-so important for all mankind - of David, who has been exalted by passing through humiliation, there arise from him confident hopes concerning the future. The beginning of this strophe calls Psa 23:4 to mind. Though his way may lead through the midst of heart - oppressing trouble, Jahve will loose these bands of death and quicken him afresh (חיּה as in Psa 30:4; Psa 71:20, and frequently). Though his enemies may rage, Jahve will stretch forth His hand threateningly and tranquillizingly over their wrath, and His right hand will save him. ימינך is the subject according to Psa 139:10 and other passages, and not (for why should it be supposed to be this?) accus. instrumenti (vid., Psa 60:7). In Psa 138:8 יגמר is intended just as in Psa 57:3 : the word begun He will carry out, ἐπιτελεῖν (Phi 1:6); and בּעדי (according to its meaning, properly: covering me) is the same as עלי in that passage (cf. Psa 13:6; 142:8). The pledge of this completion is Jahve's everlasting mercy, which will not rest until the promise is become perfect truth and reality. Thus, therefore, He will not leave, forsake the works of His hands (vid., Psa 90:16.), i.e., as Hengstenberg correctly explains, everything that He has hitherto accomplished for David, from his deliverance out of the hands of Saul down to the bestowment of the promise - He will not let one of His works stand still, and least of all one that has been so gloriously begun. הרפּה (whence תּרף) signifies to slacken, to leave slack, i.e., leave uncarried out, to leave to itself, as in
- ↑ The Greek imperfects with the double (syllabic and temporal) augment, as ἑώρων, ἀνέῳγον, are similar. Chajuǵ also regards the first Jod in these forms as the preformative and the second as the radical, whereas Abulwalîd, Gramm. ch. xxvi. p. 170, explains the first as a prosthesis and the second as the preformative. According to the view of others, e.g., of Kimchi, יידע might be fut. Hiph. weakened from יהדע (יהידיע), which, apart from the unsuitable meaning, assumes a change of consonants that is all the more inadmissible as ידע itself springs from ודע. Nor is it to be supposed that יידע is modified from יידע (Luzzatto, §197), because it is nowhere written יידע.
